Loading...
04 April 20, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee87082 TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITEL_- MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. April 20, 2009 Beaumont City Hail Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Records *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ve Barakian, City of Palm Springs 'Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Greg Butler, City of Temecula Ron Carr, City of Perris Kip Field, City of Corona Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Nally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wildomar Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake & San Jacinto Juan Perez, County of Riverside Kishen Prathivadi, City of Beaumont Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Jim Smith, City of Indio Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Bill Thompson, City of Norco Paul Toor, City of Coachella Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Carlos Zamano, City of Caiimesa Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager 11.36.02 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: April 20, 2009 LOCATION: Beaumont City Hall Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. REVISIONS TO THE 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT GUIDELINES (Attachment) 6. FY 2009/10 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM PROJECT CALL REMINDER (Attachment) 7. ARRA TE AND STIP TE PROGRAMMING FOR REMAINDER OF FY 2008/09 (Material will be provided at the meeting.) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting April 20, 2009 Page 2 8. FY 2008/09 OBLIGATION DELIVERY PLAN (Attachment) 9. 2008 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) AMENDMENT STATUS (Attachment) 10. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS (Attachment) 11. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE (Verbal Presentation) 12. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS • HIGH . PRIORITY PROJECT REQUESTS FOR FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION (Attachment) 13. OTHER BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be May 18, 2009, 10:00 A.M., in Riverside.) • MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, March 16, 2009 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M. at Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Ed Basubas, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula Kip Field, City of Corona Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Patrick Hally, Caltrans District 8 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Alfonso Hernandez, SunLine Transit Agency Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Michael Kashiwagi, City, of Wildomar Kahono Oei, City of Banning Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Patty Romo, County of Riverside Eric Skaugset, Cities of Canyon Lake and San Jacinto Jim Smith, City of Indio Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Others Present: • Grace Alvarez, RCTC Khalid Bazmi, RCTC Doug Begley, Press Enterprise Patti Castillo, RCTC Ron Espalin, City of Calimesa Marlin Feenstra, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 16, 2009 Page 2 Aaron Hake, RCTC Kevin Hughes, City of Beaumont Abunnasr Husain, RCTC Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Shirley Medina, RCTC John Standiford, RCTC 3. Approval of Minutes Approved as submitted. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) —RIVERSIDE COUNTY HIGHWAY PROPOSAL • CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ACTIONS Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that the ARRA proposal was presented at the March 11, 2009 Commission meeting. She provided a table that was revised following the Commission meeting. The items that were revised are in Scenario 1, the Palm Drive Interchange initially had zero and the Bob Hope Interchange had $20 million; however, the Palm Drive Interchange is moving ahead faster and is not as complicated as far as finishing the right of way. The change indicates that $5 million was moved to Scenario 1 and the Bob Hope Interchange was reduced by that amount. Staff will work closely with CVAG regarding the I- 10 Interchanges. She further stated that as indicated in the Commission agenda item, 30% is expected to come to the regions - approximately $35 million. The 70% scenario is questionable. It is not known how those funds will be distributed at this time, but legislation is pending that proposes to distribute the state's ARRA share through the STP formula. At the March 11/12, 2009 CTC meeting, the $625 million SHOPP level was approved. At this time, the regions are not able to get an allocation of the ARRA highway funds. A special meeting will be held on April 1 to start some of the allocations for some of the regions that have projects ready to go. • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 16, 2009 Page 3 Staff is working on a TIP amendment to get the funds identified in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program. A $70 million range worth of targets will be submitted. The transit projects will moveforward to the Commission in April. We have received the projects from SunLine and from RTA. Staff is proposing some funding on the joint project with Metrolink. That will come out in the next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting. Ms. Medina said that the staff agenda item that went to the commission last week included support for SANBAG's I-215 project. Under the state's ARRA funding distribution there are funds set aside for the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (Caltrans set aside funds from the STIP) and RCTC does not have any projects that would qualify under this category that are ready for implementation. Therefore, ROTC will be supporting MP ARRA funding for the I-215 project through downtown San Bernardino as this project will generate many jobs in the Inland Empire. 6. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS John Standiford, RCTC, reported that there was a public hearing for resolution of necessity on the East Junction project. The project will not require eminent domain after all. He thanked the cities of Palm Springs, Riverside and Corona for having their alternates at the meeting. There was a presentation on RCTC's budget principles, objectives. The full budget will be presented to the Commission in June. He announced Jerry Rivera's impending retirement. Ms. Medina recommended that the agencies contact her with any Measure A CIP questions for the time being. 7. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Patrick Hally, Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance, said there will be an ARRA workshop March 17, 2009. Headquarters will be there from 9:00 to noon and anyone having projects should be there. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 16, 2009 Page 4 There will be a DBE presentation on Wednesday, March 18, 2009. There will be 2 sessions of presentations for about an hour each, one at 10:00 and one at 1:00. Local Assistance is also coordinating with Headquarters for a 4 hour workshop sometime in April, a continuation of the DBE presentation. Notices will be sent once the date has been established. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:50 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for April 20, 2009, 10:00 A.M., Beaumont City Hall, Conference Room #2, 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA 92223. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Programming and Planning Manager • • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Revisions to the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort Guidelines STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Review the proposed revisions to the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Guidelines; and 2) Review the 2009 Measure A MOE submissions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: MOE guidelines have been in place for the Local Streets and Roads program since the commencement of the 1989 Measure A. The county of Riverside and the local cities must comply with these guidelines in order to receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds. At the September 12, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved the MOE guidelines for the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads program'. Significant provisions included in the 2009 Measure A MOE guidelines that were not part of the 1989 Measure A MOE guidelines were as follows: • Requirement for cities incorporated after July 1, 2007 to establish "base year" MOE amounts; • Reevaluation of the MOE in 2019 and 2029; and • Requirements to participate in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee and Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan for Western Riverside County jurisdictions. In December 2008, staff distributed the 2009 Measure A MOE guidelines to the local jurisdictions and requested that the MOE "base year' calculations be submitted for review. As a result of the economic difficulties being experienced in the Inland Empire, several cities contacted the Commission regarding issues pertaining to the calculation of a "base year' amount in accordance with the guidelines. Legal counsel was contacted to determine if the MOE requirement could be suspended due to the economic difficulties in the region. Legal counsel indicated that the MOE requirement is part of the state's Public Utilities Code, and that abandoning or suspending the MOE would require changes in state law and approval by the Riverside County voters. All but three jurisdictions responded and submitted their "base year" MOE calculations. As a result of a preliminary review of the submitted amounts, staff identified a few potential issues related to the 2009 Measure MOE guidelines and consulted with legal counsel regarding revisions to these guidelines provided that such revisions do not conflict with the 2009 Measure A ordinance. As a result, staff proposes the following revisions subject to Commission approval, as per the attachment: • The "base year" amount shall be no less than the preceding MOE requirement; • The three year period for averaging of local discretionary funds under I.B.2a shall be 2004/05 through 2006/07; • The fiscal year for local discretionary funds under 1.6.2b shall be 2006/07; • The fiscal years to be used for the reevaluations and revisions in 2019 and 2029 were updated to be consistent with the changes to 113.2; • Jurisdictions that do not meet the full MOE requirement shall not be eligible for Measure A allocations in the following fiscal year; and • A jurisdiction is limited to the three preceding years for the use of local discretionary funds expended for local street and road purposes which were. in excess of the full MOE requirement. Staff will review an analysis of the 2009 MOE submissions with the committee. As a result of the recommended changes to the 2009 MOE guidelines, staff intends to advise all cities and the county of the changes, especially those related to the calculation of the MQE requirement, and allow revised MOE submittals through May 22, 2009. Staff will present the 2009 MOE submissions to the Commission for approval at the June 10, 2009 meeting. Upon approval of the MOE requirement, the annual process of gathering MOE certifications and the five year capital improvement plans for Commission approval can be completed; jurisdictions can then begin receiving FY 2009/10 Measure A local streets and roads allocations in September 2009. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT GUIDELINES INTENT Ordinance No. 02-001, adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission in 2002, approved a county -wide transportation expenditure plan and called for the placement of Measure A on the November ballot to secure voter approval of a 1/2 percent sales tax to fund transportation improvements. On November 5, 2002, Riverside County voters approved Measure A and collection of the sales tax will commence on July 1, 2009. Ordinance No. 02-001, in accordance with state law, imposes specific requirements on local agencies wishing to receive Measure A funds. In particular, in order to ensure continued local effort to maintain local streets and roads, the Ordinance requires that local agencies continue to expend the same amount for construction and maintenance of local roads which they have expended in the past. The guidelines set forth below establish specific maintenance of effort requirements and are intended to satisfy the Commission's responsibility to ensure that local transportation expenditures are maintained. GUIDELINES I. In order to qualify for Measure A funds, each local agency entitled to funding under Ordinance No. 02-001 must demonstrate a continuing commitment of local discretionary funds to local street and road improvements and maintenance. The following actions are required annually to show a continued maintenance of local effort: A. Each local agency must submit to the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") a list of proposed uses for Measure A funds for the next five fiscal years (5-Year Plan). B. Each local agency must provide a certification to the Commission that Measure A funds will not replace existing local discretionary funds being used for local transportation purposes. Examples of local non -discretionary funds include, but are not limited to, gas tax revenues, federal funding, and local transportation funds (LTF). This certification shall be based on one of the following findings: I. That the same level of discretionary funds was expended for local streets and roads purposes during the past fiscal year as was reported in the State Controller's Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads for fiscal year 2007/08 (herein referred to as the "base year"); or 2. That extraordinary expenditures made by the local agency during fiscal year 2007/08 make use of the State Controller's Annual Report for that year unrealistic. In this case, the local agency may, upon approval of the Commission, determine its local maintenance of effort requirement using one of the following methods: a. Averaging the amount of local discretionary funds reported to the State Controller for the three year period of fiscal years 2004/05 through2006/07; or b. ,Using the amount of local discretionary funds . reported to the State Controller for fiscal year 2006/07, or c. Petitioning the Commission for special consideration. The Commission recognizes that there may be cases where the two methods described above will not produce a dollar amount which adequately reflects the agency's past commitment of local revenues to the construction and maintenance of local streets and roads. In such cases, the Commission may establish a new minimum level of local streets and roads expenditures for the local agency based on factors which the Commission determines are relevant. The Commission may also allow, in its sole discretion, a local agency to use developer fees to satisfy its maintenance of effort requirement. A local agency petitioning the Commission under this provision has the responsibility of presenting evidence which shows the need for special consideration and which supports the new { Deleted: 2005/06 l Deleted:_ 2007/08 Deleted: Subtracting extraordinary expenditures (including but not limited to assessment district funds, redevelopment agency contributi or other ran -recurring contributio from its total expenditures during th 2007/08 fiscal year. Development impact fees paid by developers constructing new housing to offset the impact of development on local streets and roads may be subtracted only if the local agency does not use such funds to satisfy its maintenance of effort requirement minimum expenditure limit The amount determined pursuant to 1.6.1 or 1.6.2, above, shall be no less than theprecedinq Measure A maintenance of effort requirement. C. For cities incorporated after July 1, 2007, the base year shall be the average of the first three fiscal years of operations. The maintenance of local effort requirement shall apply to all fiscal years subsequent to the base year. D. The maintenance of local effort shall be reevaluated and revised in 2019 and 2029 using the guidelines in Section 1.B above with the following substitutions: a. In 2019, the fiscal year reference shall be 2017/18, The .- three-year period of fiscal years under 1.6.2a shall be 2014/15 through 2016/17, . and the fiscal year under 1.6.2b shall be 2016/17. The revised base year will be effective in fiscal year 2019/20; and b. In 2029, the fiscal year reference shall be 2027/28,_The three-year period of fiscal years under 1.6.2a shall be 2024/25 through_2026/27L - and the fiscal year under I.6.2b shall be 2026/27. The revised base year will be effective in fiscal year 2029/30. II. The Commission may, in its sole discretion, order an independent audit of a local agency's local streets and roads expenditures to verify that the maintenance of effort requirement has been met. 111. When a local agency does not meet its full maintenance of effort' -- requirement in the fiscal year, ‘that agency_ shall not be eligible for any Measure A .- Local Streets and Roads funds in the following fiscal year, ,Revenues withheld from a local agency for failure to meet the full maintenance of effort requirement will remain in the Measure A area in which the agency is located, and will be allocated to the local agencies in the area, that are in compliance with the full maintenance of effort requirement, using the allocation formula specified for the area. IV. Ordinance 02-001 also requires that local agencies, in the Western County and Coachella Valley areas must, in addition to meeting the maintenance of effort requirement, implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) developed by the Westem Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) or the l Deleted: 1989 J Deleted: and Deleted: t Deleted: 2015/16 Deleted: 2017/18 -f Deleted: and ( Deleted: t - {Formatted: Bullets and Numbering l Deleted: the allocation to Deleted: will be reduced Deleted: The amount of the reduction will be an amount equal to the proportional amount by which the agency's expenditures were below the full maintenance of effort requirement Coachella Valley Association of Govemments (CVAG), respectively, in order to be eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Road Program funds. In addition, local agencies in the Western County must participate in the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) by endorsing the permit and executing the Implementation Agreement in order to be eligible to receive Measure A Local Streets and Road Program funds. Funds withheld from a local agency in these areas for failure to implement the TUMF or the MSHCP will be disbursed to the Commission or CVAG, as applicable, and must be used by the Commission or CVAG for the regional arterial program. Local Streets and Road Program formula funds disbursed to the Commission or CVAG will be credited as local match funds for the Measure A Regional Arterial Program formula funds. V. For the purpose of determining the amount of local discretionary funds expended by a local agency for local street and road purposes during a fiscal year, the agency may use any local discretionary funds expended for local street and road purposes during the three preceding years which were in excess of the agency's full maintenance of effort requirement as determined by the Commission. APPROVED BY ROTC: ,May , 2009 -{ Deleted:.. September 12,.2007 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned hereby agrees and certifies for (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Measure A) shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Dated: , 20 City Manager Attest: • City Clerk • RCTC Measure A MOE Analysis Westem County Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake 1989 Measure A Estimated Excess MOE MOE Base (Carryover) Expenditures Year MOE 6/30/08 (19 yrs) MOE Guidelines (as revised) 2009 Measure A 2008 Measure _: 3-yr avg Proposed A LSR 2008 (per (2005-2007) 2007 (per MOE Base Allocations 1.6.1) (per 1.6.2a) 1.6.2b) Year Basis 164,325 2,860,305 5,982,480 692,058 t28,328 380,473 432,742 590,392 2008 70,702 11, 053, 465 12, 396, 803 N/A N/A N/A N/A _ new city Corona 1,784,399 30,787,958 64,691,539 Hemet 1,183,605 1,938,024 24,426,519 new city 686,232 174,462 1,818,764 2,879,829 2,786,808 95,941 84,071 City contacted RCTC staff and is working on calc 222,567 99,327 36,117 64,925 59,224 3-yr avg 4,790,068 .;,;,;;I 5,749,155 3,558,781 3,788,870 3,257,577 2008 discretionary of $5,749,155 less deductions for one-time capital projects (Cajalco, street reconstruction, SB821) of $786,202, error on street report for accounting change related to engineers on water/sewer projects moved to PW for capital projects for $484,088, and FY2008/09 budget reductions of $1,221,288. 1,972,391 31,975 166,883 256,174 1,163,082 Revised submittal using 2008 discretionary of $31,975 plus LLMD of $40,000 for traffic signal maintenance, sewer funds of $338,329 for street sweeping, sewer funds of $155,000 for storm drain -related impacts, yard dept funding for equipment replacement and maintenance of $291,192, and other funds of $306,586 for PW engineering. These additional sources were considered "discretionary" when 1989 MOE was calculated and then excluded in later years from Street Report preparation. Revised submittal prepared in order to be consistent with 1989 MOE determination as a minimum amount. Lake Elsinore 503,339 11,015,721 20,579,162 1,296,326 "..1,357,274,'• 1,518,548 1,883,890 1,352,276 2008 Menifee n/a n/a - 2008 new city - 4'j( N/A N/A N/A N/A New city, need 3 yrs history Moreno Valley 943,143 26,066,015 43,985,732 4,264,317 4,552,223 2,695,648 3,107,855 2,884,880 2008 discretionary of $4,552,223 less deductions of $1,405,793 for transfer to subsidize gas tax fund, $52,072 for transfer to offset revenue shortfall relating to street sweeping, $40,978 for transfer to offset revenue shortfall related to median maintenance, $164,000 for transfer to augment project funded by lease revenue bonds, and $4,500 for RDA one-time project funding. Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside N/A N/A 1,259 3,642,210 3,666,131 399,945 14,236,036 21,834,991 new city 2,516,817 ,,; 2,478,607 1,211,993 1,242,311 60,326 828,871 1,303,501 301,351 182,885 46,146 62,929 2008 discretionary of $2,478,607 less deduction of $2,418,281 for 1-215 overcrossing at Linnel Lane project to construct new freeway overcrossing deemed an extraordinary expenditure. 2008 discretionary of $301,351 less various deductions for payroll of $167,465 for three employees in Engineering and PW departments not involved in road projects due to contract with firm to manage street projects, administrative expenditures of $6,370, 25% ($9,522) of contracted city engineer for non -street projects, 75% ($10,875) of computer charges not street related, and storm drain maintenance expenditures of $44,190 included in strom drain fund. 981,793 785,090 1,527,063 1,097,879 3-yr avg 12,449,203 37,917,844 274,452,701 8,433,571 ." i9,409,956 19,117,166 17,957,591 11,134,233 FY2001-2005. Under 3-yr average for 2006-2008, amount would have been $24,229,358. Under 5-yr average for 2004-2008, amount would have been $19,228,442. Under 9-yr average for 2000-2008, amount would have been $15,363,216. San Jacinto Temecula 1Niildomar 143,347 14, 325, 282 17, 048, 875 N/A N/A n/a n/a new city _ 2008 new dry 749,541 2,120,795 1,773,636 2,605,310 315,778 GRy t.dlt.uldLCU LIT Wel LWU Il MU IVUJ d11U U,eU DCWIIU IIICU Iuu, peUUullllly tut wet. WIIJIu dIIVII. r11M UIIUCI IVIVC guidelines with $959,578 as MOE based on 2008 discretionary less deductions for $512,171 related to plan check service and landscape from Engineering Department that does not support Streets Department and for city employee support of contract engineering, for $432,338 related to acquisition of vehicles and equipment purchased, for $34,763 related to lease costs included in expenditures that is essentially a duplication of equipment replacement charge allocations, and $181,945 for unknown amount included by State Controllers Office as discretionary maintenance. Second method used was based on a recalculation of the Street Report due to issues city has with how report has been prepared. This was based on a recalculation from the general ledger for streets dept, storm drains dept, street sweeping fund, and capital projects less deductions similar to above and development agreement funds identified for capital projects. 3,342,016 %:; 3,746,644 6,083,944 5,976,311 2,785,034 City petitioned for special consideration to use Proposition 42 General Fund MOE. If 2008 Street Report were used, discretionary amount would have been $3,746,644. N/A N/A N/A N/A New city, need 3 yrs history RCTC Measure A MOE Analysis Coachella Valley Cathedral City Coachella 1989 Measure A MOE Base Year Excess (Carryover) MOE 6/30/08 Estimated MOE Expenditures (19 yrs) 2008 Measure A LSR Allocations MOE Guidelines (as revised) 3-yr avg 2008 (per (2005-2007) 2007 (per 1.6.1) (per1.6.2a) 1.6.2b) 2009 Measure A Proposed MOE Base Year Basis Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells 625,230 6,369,210 18,248,580 69,663 7,489,140 8,812,737 57,586 494,818 1,588,952 55,962 20,754,778 21,818,056 Indio 465,763 40,391,316 49,240,813 La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Palo Verde Valley Blythe N/a N/a _ non -CV TUMF 904,798 112,150,179 129,341,341 1,892,584 28,148,003 64,107,099 1,191,036 29,479,671 52,109,355 1,439,622 1,335,006 2,318,277 535,351 • : 3,042,976 1,126,458 2,358,770 387,365 229,628 58,211 81,719 228,694 1,688,071 884,661 1,076,024 1,543,704 9,215,696 5,934,673 6,971,520 2,408,250 1,707,300 888,711 N/A N/A N/A i21;2f 14,674,952 22,166,290 4,900,163 3,572,175 4,408,498 2,084,163 2,598,153 2,239,225 475,660 determined 5-yr average (FY 03-07) and that average discretionary funding as a percentage of total expenditures from the Street Report. That "discretionary" percentage was then applied to the Measure A revenue projection for CC for the next 5 years (FY 09-13) to come up with the average "discretionary" funding based on Measure A funding. 124,036 City has contacted RCTC staff and is working on talc 3-yr avg 1,212,430 3-yr avg 1,865,259 3-yr avg based on amounts not in agreement with street report less deductions for traffic signal and street light electricity costs, street maintenance labor charges moved to gas tax, slurry seal program, overtime for special events, waste disposal, indirect intemal service charges, patch truck and loader bucket, and cat hammer. N/A Not eligible for Measure A LSR as does not participate in CV TUMF 6,584,584 3-yr avg less deductions for capital expenditures reimbursed by CVAG, RDA, bond proceeds, and state and federal grants and for 2008 deduction of $2,057,141 related to resurfacing project as part of undergrounding of utilities and for additional streets added to resurfacing program. Unadjusted 3-yr average would be $17,620,965. 3,702,248 3-yr avg with deductions for 2007 transfer of $600,000 from gas tax and 2007 and 2008 deductions for grant funded projects included in error of $662,685 and $718,281, respectively. Unadjusted 3-yr average would be $4,363,000. 1,881,714 2008 less deductions of $42,420 for plan check and inspection service for development activity reported in error and $160,029 for developer fee projects in which developer fee no longer collected. 475,677 4,705,286 13,743,149 756,219 , 621,368 1,101,696 2,583,100 431,368 2008 discretionary of $621,368 less two extraordinary items related to nonrecurring contribution transfers from Traffic Safety Fund of $190,000. Riverside County N/A N/A _ exempted 12,067,661 ; - County has no discretionary funds used for street and road purposes. AGEIVPA ITEM 6.. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Brian Cunanan, Program Manager SUBJECT: FY 2009/10 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Call Reminder Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item: 1. Provides a reminder that completed applications seeking FY 2009/10 SB 821 funding are due to RCTC by 2:00 pm, Friday May 1st, 2009 and; 2. Solicits a request for three TAC volunteers to participate in the SB 821 Evaluation Committee to be held Wednesday, May 27th, 2009 at 8:30am in RCTC's Conference Room A. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION; Jerry Rivera, the previous Program Manager for SB 821, has recently retired. Martha Durbin will be the new coordinator for the SB 821 Call for Projects. Attached is a copy of RCTC's March 19, 2009, FY 2009/10 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Call for Projects Letter notifying agencies that completed applications seeking SB 821 funding are due to RCTC no later than 2:00 pm, Friday, May 1st, 2009. The entire packet can be downloaded at rctc.org. Approximately $1,146,590 is estimated to be available for the FY 09/10 cycle. The Evaluation Committee is normally comprised of three representatives from RCTC's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC), and three representatives from RCTC's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The SB 821 Evaluation Committee will meet at 8:30am Wednesday, May 27th, 2009 to score and rank the applications. Interested members from non submitting agencies desiring to be on the Evaluation Committee should notify Martha Durbin, RCTC Staff Analyst, at mdurbin@rctc.org or 951-787-7141, before May 1st. Attachment: RCTC 3/19/09 FY 2009/10 B 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Letter • • • 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Mailing Address: P. Q. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org rside County Transportation Commission March 19, 2009 TO: ELIGIBLE AGENCIES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FROM: Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Program Manager SUBJECT: FY 2009/10 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Section 99233.3 of the State Public Utilities Code (SB 821) sets aside 2% of the Local Transportation Fund in each County to fund facilities for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists. Eligible expenditures are limited to preliminary engineering, right -or -way -acquisition, construction and reconstruction. Proposals for SB 821 program funds maybe filed by cities and the County of Riverside. For FY 2009/10 beginning July 1, 2009, it is estimated that $1,146,590 will be available for the program. The Commission has adopted evaluation criteria with which to rate project proposals and establish a priority list for the purpose of allocating available funds. The adopted SB 821 evaluation criteria as well as the program policies are attached for your information. Guidelines for the Commission's SB 821 program are taken from the Caltrans' Highway Design Manual. If you do not have a copy of the manual, please contact Commission staff. An ad hoc committee consisting of three members of both the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees will be responsible for evaluating the project proposals in accordance with the adopted criteria. Local agencies wishing to apply for SB 821 funds must submit eight (8) copies of their application to the Commission no later than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, May 1, 2009. Proposals received after 2:00 p.m. on May 1, 2009 will be returned unopened to the agency and will not be considered for funding. The following items must be submitted with the application: • A project description indicating the nature and type of project(s) proposed, design considerations, transportation purposes to be served, and pertinent information indicating the extent of use by pedestrians, people using mobility assistance devices, and bicyclists. • A project information form (attached). • An 8 V2" x 11" map showing the project(s) location and limits. In addition to the attached evaluation criteria, the following program guidelines have been established to facilitate the selection of suitable projects: Page 2 March 19, 2009 • Where appropriate, adequate erosion protection facilities (i.e. curb and gutter, rolled curb, asphalt berm, etc.) should exist or be planned for construction to maintain the integrity of the proposed project. • Alignment of bikeways and sidewalks must meet ADA requirements and excessively meandering facilities are "discouraged". • Bikeway projects must be included in adopted regional and/or local bikeway plans to insure that consistency and connectivity is maintained. (See recommendation below regarding support for preparation of regional/local bikeway plans.) • Local agencies should require development to provide reasonable facilities, or to bond for such facilities, in order to allow the SB 821 program to fund projects where no other financial support is readily available. • Support the allocation of funds to prepare a regional bikeway plan and/or assist local agencies in preparation of local bikeway plans. If your agency submits a project proposal for funding, you will be notified of the time and place the SB 821 Committee will meet to review the proposal. You will be requested to provide a brief presentation on the proposed project(s) to the committee and respond to any question they may have. If your agency does not attend the Evaluation Committee presentation, your proposal will be evaluated as submitted, and your agency assumes full responsibility for any unanswered questions or concerns. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call Martha at (951) 787- 7141 or email mdurbin@rctc.org. MD: Attachments Distribution: V.SB821CFP.It Public Works Directors, w/Attachments City Managers, w/o Attachments Director, Riverside County Transportation Dept. Coachella Valley Association of Governments Western Riverside Council of Governments • • • AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: ARRA TE and STIP TE Programming for Remainder of FY 2008/09 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to approve programming additional ARRA TE and STIP TE funding to maximize and prevent lapse of both sources of funds. The projects recommended for additional funding are: 1) Palm Springs, Gene Autry Trail; 2) Riverside, Alessandro Blvd; and 3) Temecula, Winchester Road. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocated $2,198,000 of Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds for Riverside County. The county's State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) TE fund balance for the remainder of fiscal year 2008/09 is $2,881,000. We have identified three TE projects that are ready to proceed with construction. The three projects and their status are as follows: Palm Springs, Gene Autry Trail — The city submitted the STIP TE allocation request in January 2009. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) deferred the allocation due to the State budget impasse. Riverside, Alessandro Boulevard — The city submitted the STIP TE allocation request to Caltrans in February for allocation at the April CTC meeting. Caltrans was told not to forward allocation requests since the CTC was deferring all allocations due to the State budget impasse. Temecula, Winchester Road — The city submitted the STIP TE allocation request to Caltrans in March for allocation at the May CTC meeting. The allocation request is also on hold until further notice by Caltrans and the CTC. STIP projects that are programmed in the current fiscal year must request their allocation regardless of whether the CTC can allocate funds. When funds become available the CTC will allocate funds to projects that have been deferred starting with the first projects in the queue. CTC staff has indicated that allocations may be approved starting in May. To facilitate the delivery of the first project in the queue, which is Palm Springs' Gene Autry project, staff recommends funding this project 100% with ARRA TE funds. ARRA TE funds are available for obligation and should be maximized so that the project is delivered as soon as possible. Palm Springs will be relieved of providing $337,000 in local match funds. The second project in line is the city of Riverside's Alessandro Blvd. project. Staff recommends funding this project with the remainder of ARRA TE funds and STIP TE funds. If the STIP TE funds are available for allocation at the May or June meetings, the project can proceed and the city will be relieved of providing $545,000 in local match funds. If the STIP TE funds are not available, the city can request an AB 3090 reimbursement and move forward with the project using their own funds and receive reimbursement when funds are available. AB 3090 reimbursements are placed as high priorities in the next fiscal year. The other option would be for the city to delay the project until STIP TE funds are available. The third project is the city of Temecula's Winchester Road project. Staff recommends funding this project using the remainder of FY 08/09 STIP TE funding, which reduces the local funds by $400,000. As with the city of Riverside's project, if STIP TE funding is not available for the remainder of the fiscal year, the city could request and AB 3090 reimbursement, or delay the project until STIP TE funds are available. The attached table demonstrates the existing and recommended TE programming for the three projects. In addition, staff increased existing STIP TE funds by 10% to maximize the TE funds. FY08/09 ARRA-TE and STIP-TE Funding Option ($10o0s) TE Allocation Existing_Funding TE Funding Option Net TE Increase` Rationale Original w/10% Increase TE Local ARRA TE STIP TE Local Gene Autry Trail Gateway $1,375 $1,513 $1,513 $337 $1,850 $0 $0 $337 Maximize ARRA Alessandro Median Landscaping $944 $1,038 $1,038 $705 $348 $1,235 $160 $545 Use remainder of ARRA and maximize STIP TE Winchester/SR-790orridor Beautification $1,133 $1,246 $1,246 $1,828 $1,646 $1,428 $400 Use remainder of FY08/09 TE capacity Total $3,797 $2,870 $2,198 $2,881 $1,588 AGENDA ITEM 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: FY 2008/09 Obligation Delivery Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached FY 2008/09 obligation delivery plan was submitted to Caltrans on April 1, 2009. The plan is based on the Project Milestone Reports that were submitted to RCTC in September and any updates provided by the project sponsors. This report provides critical information to RCTC on the need to develop contingency plans, such as loans between regions or project substitution, based on the target amount of federal funds that needs to be obligated during the fiscal year (also referred to as OA). Likewise, the obligation delivery plan helps Caltrans to develop contingency plans for the state as well as anticipate workload for District staff. Until this fiscal year, regions have had until June 1st of each year to obligate their annual OA target, after which the OA becomes available for use by other regions within the state. That deadline has now been moved up to May 1st. The state is hopeful that this deadline change will reduce the impact of the fourth quarter "rush" for obligations while also increasing the opportunity for the state to receive funds from other states that have low delivery, referred to as "August Redistribution". Therefore, while some projects simply can not obligate earlier than the schedule allows because of issues such as environmental or right of way certification requirements, staff encourages agencies to obligate as early as possible to increase the likelihood that there will be OA available for the project. Based on the Delivery Plan, this fiscal year is oversubscribed for the Riverside County share of OA, but if project sponsors request obligation before June 2009, it is likely that all projects in the plan will receive obligation. Agencies are encouraged to notify RCTC when projects that are contained in the delivery plan begin to experience delay. This will allow staff the time necessary to develop contingency plans that ensure federal funds are not lost to the region. Attachment: FY2008/09 Obligation Delivery Plan • Local Assistance Obligation Plan Obligation Authority Needs for Remainder of FFY 2009 and AB 1012 Requirements Local Agency Project Number (enter as: S1P 1274(587); If not known please Provide the project FTIP number Project Location Provide location of project -street name, highway, cost -street etc '! it (' 43rlt Rs'Iiir LTlI-,.a.d Ri, �>� 1?Crr -T , s ,: t )tic7ti) c f iil 17 Ys - t r �b f r x i�Yu A a: < ti a 1 yy r w' Remarks Enter any comments or additional In(ortnation and •PridaficonlaG tor questions � Caltrans CMSTPL- 6208(006) Routes 60/90/215 interchange and 1215 corridor Reconstruct interchange and new HOV lanes and truck climbing lane 5/1/2009 8,860,000 8,960,203 .i $17,820,203 Final settlement costs - Under eligibility review by FHWA Cathedral City RIV071245 N & S sides of Varner Rd. & E & W of Vamer Rd. - PM 10 Stabilization PM10 stabilization 4/15/2009 9,000 $9,000 RFA forwarded by CT HQ to FHWA 3/19/09 Cathedral City RIV071247 TS Synchronization along E. Palm Canyon Signal synchronization 4/15/2009 32,000 $32,000 RFA forwarded b 3/19/09 y CT HQ to FHWA Coachella RIV071246 Ave 52 Grade Separation Construct grade separation 6/15/2009 1,062,000 $1,062,000 Submit PSE RFA 5/2009 CVAG RIV090102 Coachella Valley PM- 10 Program Acquire alternative fuel street sweepers 7/1/2009 2,000,000 $2,000,000 Submit construction RFA 5/2009 Desert Hot Springs RIV071236 Western Ave -Scenic Dr Paving Roadway paving 10/1/2009 315,000 $315,000 Submit construction RFA 7/30/09 Desert Hot Springs RIV071237 Palm Dr Signal & Synchronization Signal synchronization 10/1/2009 458,000 $458,000 Submit construction RFA 7/30/09 Hemet RIV031223 Rehab State St & Devonshire Rehabilitation 7/1/2009 562,000 $562,000 Submit construction RFA 5/2009 Indian Wells RIV52001 Cook St Pavement Rehab Rehabilitation 8/1/2009 92,000 $92,000 Submit construction RFA 6/2009 Indio RIV071238 Ave 48 TS Interconnect & TS Install Signal synchronization 8/15/2009 790,000 $790,000 Submit construction RFA 6/2009 Indio RIV071239 Clean Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle acquisition 9/1/2009 233,000 $233,000 Submit construction RFA 7/2009 La Quinta RIV071268 Hwy 111 Signal Interconnect Signal synchronization 8/15/2009 177,000 $177,000 Submit construction RFA 6/2009 Moreno Valley HP21 STPL- 0027(012) State Route 60 and Nason Street interchange Reconstruct off- and onram_ps 5/15/2009 370,000 $370,000 ROW supplemental obligation request to be submitted 4/2009 Moreno Valley HP2ISTPL- 0027(012) State Route 60 and Nason Street interchange Reconstruct off- and onramps 9/15/2009 1,770,219 $1,770,219 Submit construction RFA 7/2009 Moreno Valley RIV011210 Reche Vista/Cyn Realignment Roadway realigment 10/1/2009 1,967,000 $1,967,000 Submit construction RFA 8/2009 Norco RIV031223 Rehab Second St Rehabilitation 6/15/2009 234,000 $234,000 Submit construction RFA 4/2009 Palm Desert RIV071249 Fred Waring Or @ San Pascual -TS Modifications Signal modifications 10/1/2009 202,000 $202,000 ED to Caltrans 4/1/2009 Palm Desert RIV071256 Soil stabilization -two locations Soil stabilization 10/1/2009 301,000 $301,000 ED to Caltrans 4/1/2009 Local Assistance Obligation Plan Obligation Authority Needs for Remainder of FFY 2009 and A81012 Requirements Local Agency. Project Number (enter as: sTP 1234(557): if not known please provide the project FTlP number) Project Location Provide location of project -street name, highway, crose-street, etc. Interconnect System =,aiC aaY q- ��rXdk rt Ida=a 1 1 �7 i• Signal synchronization ggtXuo ,41 ( , Wr—r 1z 19 "y ti 10/1/2009 f-'. 's _ .i ., I I�q y'Y t�'� _ ``'c '^s, , s ., , ; 3Rt ��?, `�•. '. _. -. Remarks ' Enter any comments or additional information and provide a contact for questions Palm Desert RIV071257 753,000 $753,000 ED to Caltrans 4/1/2009 Palm Desert RIV071262 Hwy111 Improvements Roadway improvements 10/1/2009 620,000 $620,000 ED to Caltrans 4/1/2009 Palm Springs RIV010213 Gene Autry Tr RR Bridge 2 to 6 Lns Roadway widening 7/15/2009 4,038,000 $4,038,000 Submit construction RFA 5/2009 Palm Springs CML-5282(030) East San Lorenzo Road from 140 feet west of South Camino Real to South Hermosa Drive PM-10 shoulder paving and asphalt concrete berms 8/1/2009 161,000 $161,000 Submit construction. RFA 6/2009 Palm Springs RIV071258 Traffic Management Center 5/15/2009 199,000 $199,000 Submit PSE RFA 4/2009 Riverside CMLN-5058(065) SR 91Nan Buren St IC Interchange improvements 5/1/2009 1,681,000 500,000 $2,181,000 ""ARRA FUNDED PROJECT. Submit construction RFA 3/2009 for early review • Final 4/2009. Riverside RPSTPLE- 5058(079) Alessandro. Blvd Median Construction Landscaping Project Landscape Improvements 5/1/2009 1,235,000 $1,235,000 "ARRA FUNDED PROJECT. RFA submitted 2/09 - Should beon CTC agenda 5/09 Riverside STPL-5058(073) Iowa Ave. Grade Separation - OC Construct grade separation 4/15/2009 400,000 $400,000 Submitted ROW RFA 11/2008; request still in CT HQ Riverside CMHPLUL- 5058(064) Jumps Avenue at the Union Pacific Railroad grade crossing east of Van Buren Boulevard Construct grade separation 4/15/2009 317,000 $317,000 Construction supplemental obligation request submitted 6/26/08; request still in HQ Riverside STPLER-5058(067) Victoria Ave from Harrison St to Adams St Historic parkway restoration 5/1/2009 76,000 $76,000 Construction supplemental obligation request to be submitted 4/2009 Riverside County CMLN-5956(126) SR 60 and Valley Way interchange in Sunnyslope Ramp modifications 6/1/2009 2,000,000 $2,000,000 ""ARRA FUNDED PROJECT. Submit construction RFA 5/2009. San Jacinto STPL-5075(013) Ramona Expressway from State Street (SR 79) to Lake Park Drive Roadway Reconstruction 8/1/2009 1,500,000 $1,500,000 Construction supplemental obligation request to be submitted 6/2009 (after TIP approval) SunL.ine RIV071263 Fred Waring Corridor Express Bus route FTA transfer 310,000 $310,000 FTA Transfer - Transfer request at FHWA Sunline RIV071266 Thousand Palms Transit. Hub Construct new transit hub FTA transfer 664,000 $664,000FHWA FTA Transfer - Transfer request at q Temecula RIV041047 Winchester Rd/SR-79 North Corridor Landscape Improvements 8/15/2009 1,646,000 $1,646,000 Submit construction RFA 4/2009 for CTC agenda 6/2009. Amount may increase. • Local Assistance Obligation Plan Obligation Authority Needs for Remainder of FFY 2009 and AB 1012 Requirements Local Agency Project Number (enter as: STP 1234(567), if not known please provide the protect FTlP number) Project Location Provide location of project ai eel name, highway, cross -street, eta f�i.!.1KX4 ,g I< T 'fjti ie..rb,- i=,„� ,. C., ,rl�-c� i 1'�; �1- i:)) i t r orolv.,t� � � � 1 iq.. -l?C t ;t LIn y? `'. a(�i 111 �� �j j rta, '. :, x =' _ '�i '„ •T" fi ,f' Remarks enter airy camrne(ga4r additional information and wnv,dee_centaa(of queltlons 'i UCR CE-CERT RIV061162 Intellishare System Downtown Riv Metrolink Sla Designated parking spaces _ 4/15/2009 48,000 $48,000 _ Construction RFA submitted 8/2008; currently at FHWA for obligation. $21,550,219 $20,111,203 $2,881,000 $44,542,422 itrA .lcneauies $9,260,000 $10,340,203 $0 $19,600,203 Submitted April $2,361,000 $699,000 $0 $3,060,000 May $4,600,000 $5,062,000 $1,235,000 $10,897,000 June $1,592,000 $1,128,000 $1,646,000 $4,366,000 July $1,770,219 $1,006,000 $0 $2,776,219 August $1,967,000 $1,876,000 $0 $3,843,000 AGENDA ITEM...9.. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Amendment Status STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since approval of the 2008 RTIP (short-range transportation program) in November 2008, SCAG has processed thirteen amendments and is currently working on two more amendments (ARRA related). The attached table reflects the status of the 2008 RTIP Amendments. Also included is a listing of projects submitted to SCAG for inclusion in the 2008 RTIP Amendment No's 1-14. • • • 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates 2008 RTIP Document Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Final 7/14/2008 1 1 /17/2008 Amendment 1 Consistency with 2008 RTP Amendment 1 - 7/18/2008 7/30/2008 12/8/2008 1/14/2009 Amendment 2 Formal Amendment - 9/23/2008 10/22/2008 12/30/2008 2/2/2009 Amendment 3 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 4 Administrative Modification - 2 12/8/2008 1 /12/2009 1 /28/2009 1 /29/2009 Amendment 5 -- Economic Stimulus Revenue Amendment - Did not include projects -- Amendment 6 Formal Amendment - 15 projects submitted 01 /26/2009 02/02/2009 02/24/2009 03/25/2009 Amendment 7 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 8 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 9 Formal Amendment - 43 projects submitted 02/23/2009 03/04/2009 04/03/2009 Pending Amendment 10 Administrative Modification - 7 ARRA projects submitted 03/11/2009 03/13/2009 03/18/2009 03/18/2009 Amendment 11 -- Did not include Riverside County projects -- Amendment 12 Formal Amendment - 14 ARRA transit 03/1 1 /2009 03/20/2009 Pending Pending -- sloafoad /11.uno0 episaanw epnioui lou p a -- nuawtsnfpe yaay - luawpuawy iewaod g l luawpuawy 6uipued 6uipued 600Z/g l/t0 600Z/t l/t0 sloafoad Haab 9 - uoRe0111p0w anRealsiuuupy t L luawpuewy 600Z/80/t0 600Z/80/170 600Z/60/170 600Z/ 60/170 loafaad l - uolleowpow anp.ealsiupupy g L luawpuewy s}oafoad VMHd/10 Aq penoaddv Jt/0S Aq pa/muddy OV3S 04 an0 01011 01 ena asodand WOWnaoa dila 800Z Banning Calimesa Cathedral City Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Palm Desert Calimesa Calimesa Beaumont Ca!trans verside County erside County altrans Palm Desert Coachella RCTC Murrieta Lake Elsinore Lake Elsinore Corona Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Riverside County Ca!trans Coachella RCTC RCTC RCTC Riverside County RCTC Riverside County Moreno Valley • 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO. 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID RIV060124 RIV060102 RIV011212 RIV041044 RIV041045 RIV071240 RIV080905 RIV080906 RIV080907 RIV080908 RIV080909 RIV080910 RIV080911 RIV080912 RIV080913 RIV080914 RIV080915 RIV080916 RIV080917 RIV080918; RIV071248 RIV060117 RIV060116 RIV060115 RIV010210 45580 45590 45600 RIV031209 RIV030901 RIV071267 RIV080901 RIV010206 RIV060109 RIV010208 RIV041052 32300 RIV080902 RIV080904 RIV080903 46460 RIV060101 RIV061159 RIV071250 RIV070308 RIV070309 RIV050534 RIV071276 RIV060120 RIV050533 z111141Pidell (00111151611 Title Approval Date: 1/14/09 Sunset Ave Grade Separation County Line Widening Ramon Rd. Widening (Date Palm Dr. to Da Vall) Perris Blvd. Widening (PVSD Lat. B to Cactus) Perris Blvd. Widening (Ironwood to Manzanita) EB Cactus Ave. Widening (Veterans Way to Heacock) Alessandro Blvd. Widening (Old 215 to Frederick) Alessandro Blvd. Widening (500' E & W of Kitching) Alessandro Blvd.. (Nason to Gilman Springs Rd.) Gilman Springs Widening (SR60 to Alessandro) Gilman Springs Widening (Alessandro to Bridge) Heacock St. Widening (Cactus to San Michele Rd.) Heacock St. Widening (San Michele Rd. to Oleander) Box Springs Rd. Widening (500' W/Clark & Day St.) Ironwood Widening (Day to Barclay) Ironwood Ave. Widening (Heacock St. to Perris Blvd) Ironwood Ave. Widening (Perris Blvd. to Nason St.) Laselle St. Widening - JFK to Alessandro Blvd) Moreno Beach Dr. Widening (Cactus to Auto Mall) Redlands Blvd. Widening (SR60 to Cactus Ave) Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. Channelization Improvements 1-10/Singleton Rd. IC I-10/Cherry Valley Blvd. IC 1-10/Oak Valley Parkway IC I-10/Morongo Parkway IC I-10/Gene Autry Tr/Palm Dr. IC 1-10 at Date Palm Dr. IC I-10/Bob Hope Dr. IC I-10/Portola Ave. IC 1-10/McNaughton Pkwy IC 1-15 - SBD Co Line to Jct 1-15/1-215 - HOT Lns I-15/Mumeta Hot Springs Rd IC I-15/Railroad Canyon Rd. IC & I-15/Franklin St. I-15/SR74 IC I-15/Cajalco Rd. IC SR60/Nason St. IC + Moreno Beach Dr. IC SR60/Nason St. IC SR60/Redlands Blvd. IC SR60/Theodore St. IC SR60/Gilman Springs Rd. IC SR79 Widening (2-4) - Thompson to Domenigoni Pkwy SR86/Airport Blvd. IC SR86/Avenue 50 IC SR91 /115 Improvements SR91/71 Jct - Replace EB 91 to NB 71 connector W/Flyover connector 1-215 Widening - Scott to Nuevo Rd. IC (2-3 lanes ea. Dir) I-215/Newport Rd. IC 1-215 Nuevo Rd to Box Springs Rd. - Construct 2 HOV lanes I-215Nan Buren Blvd. IC Widening (2-4 lanes) I-215/Cactus Ave. IC Widening (3-6 lanes) Agency Beaumont Cities & County Cities & County Cities & County Corona Corona Indio La Quinta Moreno Valley Palm Desert Palm Desert Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County RCTC RCTC Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Temecula Palm Springs Palm Desert Indio Temecula Temecula Mumeta RCTC Moreno Valley Beaumont RCTC Riverside County Ca!trans RCTC Murrieta Murrieta RCTC RCTC Ca!trans Ca!trans Caltrans Caltrans Ca!trans RCTC RTA Project ID RIV070301 RIV031223 RIV070710 RIV52001 RIV010209 RIV011241 RIV071238 RIV071268 RIV011210 RIV071255 RIV071262 RIV031226 RIV060123 RIV071259 RIV071278 RIV071285 RIV071288 RIV041047 RIV061162 RIV070703 RIV071269 RIV071271 RIV071272 RIV071280 RIV071281 RIV071282 RIV990703 RIV080601 RIV031216 RIV62036 RIV031208 47520 RIV62031 RIV031215 RIV010204 46360 RIV071242 RIV050535 RIV62024 RIV071279 RIV050102 RIV010212 RIV071277 RIV010203 RIV050501 RIV050555 RIVLS01 RIVLS08 RIVLS10 RIVLS02 RIVLS06 RIV520109 RIV031207 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO. 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Oak Valley Park @ Noble Creek - Bridge Replacement STPL Lump Sum Listing for Riverside County HSIP -Riverside County Lump Sum Projects STPL Lump Sum Listing for Riverside County Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Auto Center Dr. Grade Separation Ave. 48 Traffic Signal Interconnect & Traffic Signal Installation Hwy 111 Signal Interconnect Reche Vista Dr. Realignment Mid Valley Bike Path Hwy 111 Improvements (Northern CL to Larkspur Ln) De Frain Blvd. Reconstruction & Channelization Improvements Clay St. Grade Separation Mecca Community Roundabout Magnolia Ave. Grade Separation Ave. 56 Grade Separation Ave. 66 Grade Separation STIP-TE Riverside County Lump Sum Projects UCRlntellishare System Iowa Ave. Grade Separation Third Street Grade Separation Streeter Ave. Grade Separation Riverside Ave. Grade Separation Mary Street Grade Separation Magnolia Ave. Grade Separation Columbia Ave. Grade Separation Jurupa Ave. Grade Separation Estudillo Mansion Heritage Park Rancho California Rd. Pavement Rehab 1-10/Indian Cyn Dr. IC I-10/Monterey Ave. IC 1-10/Jefferson St. IC I-15/SR 79 So. IC French Valley Pkwy IC/Arterial Phases 1-15/Califomia Oaks Rd/Kalmia St. IC SR60 from Rt. 215 to Redlands Blvd - Add 2 HOV Lns Indian St. X-ing Reconstruction SR60/1-10 - Potrero Blvd. IC SR79 Realignment (Domenigoni Pkwy to Gilman Springs Rd) SR86/SR195 (66th Ave) - New IC Green River Rd. Landscape Enhancements SR91 - Adams to 60/215 IC - Add HOV Lns 1-215 @ Los Alamos Rd. IC - Landscape Improvements I-215/Clinton Keith Rd. IC 1-215 @ SR74/G St. IC 1-215 & SR60 - Jct Reconstruction to provide 2 HOV Direct connector Lns. SHOPP - Collision Reduction Projects Lump Sum Minor Projects Lump Sum SHOPP - Mobility Projects Lump Sum SHOPP- Roadway Preservation Projects Lump Sum SHOPP - Bridge Preservation Projects Lump Sum San Jacinto Branch Line for Rail Passenger Service Corona Transit Center @ 31 E. Grand Blvd. Approval Date: 2/2/09 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agency RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA Riverside Riverside Riverside Sunline Transit *Nine Transit nline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit Sunline Transit • Project ID RIV041029 RIV050553 RIV061124 RIV071201 RIV071202 RIV071206 RIV071211 RIV071219 RIV071233 RIV071284 RIV071286 RIV071287 RIV080602 RIV080603 RIV080604 RIV080927 RIV080928 RIV080929 RIV990902 RIV080922 RIV080925 RIV080926 RIV061154 RIV071225 RIV071226 RIV071227 RIV071228 IRV071229 RIV071230 RIV071232 RIV071264 RIV071265 RIV071283 RIV080919 RIV080920 RIV080921 RIV080923 Title Riverside Transit Center - Downtown Metrolink Station Temecula Transit Center @ 27199 Jefferson Ave. Operating Assistance - FY 07/08 Operating Assistance - FY 08/09 Capitalized Preventative Maintenance - FY 2008/2009 Replacement Support Vehicles Capitalized Cost of Tire Lease - FY 2008/2009 Debt Financing - FY 2008/2009 Purchase one replacement full size bus for the City of Calexico Operating Assistance - FY 2005/2007 (Cant' over into the 2008 RTIP) Operating Assistance for the Hemet Opportunity Project Express Capitalized cost of Mobility Management for the Hemet Opportunity Project Express Purchase 8 Type VII, 26 passenger mid -size vehicles for Routes 212 & 214 Purchase 6 40-ft. CNG replacement buses for the Express/BRT Service Purchase 10 - 40 ft. CNG Expansion buses to implement Express and/or BRT Svc Maintenance Facility Upgrades - Hemet & Riverside Upgrade and replace Oracle Servers & Implement data center server virtualization syst Purchase 9 - 40 Ft. CNG Expansion buses to implement express and/or BRT service Perris Multi -Modal Transit Facility Purchase replacement office & misc. equipment Purchase communication equipment for drivers and dispatchers Construct fleet bay for paratransit vehicles Operating Assistance - FY 2007/2008 Purchase 11 expansion buses Purchase 7 replacement Alt -Fuel, CNG, Non -revenue support vehicles Purchase 3 expansion Alt -Fuel, CNG, Non -revenue support vehicles Purchase 7 Expansion paratransit DAR buses Purchase transit enhancement bus stop amenities Purchase computer & office equipment Facility Improvements CNG buses for the Fred Waring Express Bus Service Low floor CNG buses for new service from Mecca to Indio Operating Assistance to provide community based flex route in Desert Hot Springs Fuel Cell bus research & demonstration project to develop Zero Emission bus Purchase 1-CNG 40 FT. bus Purchase of ITS Equipment Operating Assistance - Fixed route & DAR - FY 2008/2009 Pars& County xoaspaaaanComissian Approval Date: 2/2/09 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agency Project ID Title Approval Date: 01/29/2009 Corona RIV011241 Auto Center Dr. Grade Separation Riverside RIV070703 Iowa Ave. Grade Separation Agency Project ID CVAG RIV090102 Desert Hot Spring: RIV050304 Desert Hot Spring; RIV061161 Riverside RIV090101 Riverside RIV090110 Banning RIV060112 Banning RIV060124 Ca!trans RIV031225 RTA RIV090104 RTA RIV090105 RTA RIV090106 Sunline Transit RIV090103 Sunline Transit RIV090107 Sunline Transit RIV090108 Sunline Transit RIV090109 • • 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Title Approval Date: 03/25/2009 Clean Vehicle - Altemative fuel sweepers for regional street sweeping program Essential Road Improvement - Ph 1 Essential Road Improvement - Ph III Victoria Ave. Utility Undergrounding (Washington Ave. to Maude St.) Victoria Ave. Parkway Restoration (Harrison to Adams/Auto Center Dr.) I-10/Sunset Ave. UC Sunset Ave. S/O 1-10 IC - Construct new 4 Ln UC GS Q UPRR & minor widening SR71 & SR91 - Conduct wildlife movement study for mitigation commitment JARC Operating Assistance - Commuter Link - Routes 212 & 214 JARC & NF Projects Lump sum for Non -Profit Organizations JARC - Extended late night service program (FY 2008/2009) JARC Operating Assistance - Extended night/guaranteed service program (FY 2008/2009) JARC & NF Projects Lump sum for Non -Profit Organizations NF - Operating Assistance to fund TRIP Program (FY 2008/2009) JARC - Rideshare Program (FY 2008/2009) 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.9 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agency Project ID Cathedral City RIV011212 FLH RIV090118 Moreno Valley RIV080905 Moreno Valley RIV080907 Moreno Valley RIV080908 Moreno Valley RIV080909 Moreno Valley RIV080914 Moreno Valley RIV080916 Moreno Valley RIV080918 Palm Desert RIV071248 Palm Springs RIV060110 Palm Springs RIV070306 Riverside County RIV071259 Riverside County RIV071260 Riverside RIV071269 Riverside RIV071272 Corona Corona RCTC RCTC RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA Sunline Transit Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Blythe RCTC Caltrans Ca!trans RIV061103 RIV061104 RIV090111 RIV090112 RIV041014 RIV041030 RIV061112 RIV061119 RIV061123 RIV061124 RIV061125 RIV061126 RIV061128 RIV061132 RIV061134 RIV071201 RIV071202 RIV080923 RIV060109 RIV090117 32300 RIV041052 RIV080904 RIV031222 RIV050555 RIVLS08 RIVLS01 Title Approval Date: Pending Ramon Rd. - Date Palm Dr. to Davall Widening (4 - 6 lanes) In Joshua Tree National Park on Park Rte 11 (Gold Pt to Sand Hill) Widening & Realig. Alessandro Blvd. Widening (Old 215 to Frederick St) Alessandro Blvd. Widening (Nason St. to Gilman Springs Rd) Gilman Springs Rd. Widening (SR60 to Alessandro) Gilman Springs Rd. (Alessandro to Bridge) Ironwood Ave. Widening (Heacock St. to Perris Blvd) tasselle St Widening (JFK to Alessandro) Redlands Blvd. Widening (SR to Cactus Ave.) Monterey Ave. & Fred Waring Dr. - Channelization Improvements S. Palm Canon Dr. Widening (Murray Canyon Rd. to Bogert Tr.) San Lorenzo Rd. Shoulder Paving Mecca Community Roundabout Ave. 66 and Harrison Ave. Traffic sitnal installation Third Street Grade Separation . Riverside Ave Grade Separation Capitalized Preventative Maintenance - FY 2008/2009 Purchase 5 replacement DAR gas/diesel buses Purchase 1 replacement modified van for Peppermint Ridge Purchase two expansion vehicles for Mt. Shadows Purchase route scheduling/runcutting system 8 software Hemet Transit Center Capital maintenance spares - 5307 FY 2006/2007 Lease cost of automatic passenger counter (5307 - FY 2006/2007) Upgrade rural area bus stops Operating Assistance - 5307 FY 2007/2008 Capitalized Preventative maintenance - 5307 FY 2007/2008 Purchase one replacement full-sized bus for the City of Calexico Purchase one replacement full-sized bus for the City of Calexico Capital Maintenance Spares - 5307 - FY 2004/2005 Purchase new coin counting machine for Riverside facility - 5307 FY 2007/2008 Operating Assistance - 5307 FY 2008/2009 Capitalized Preventative Maintenance - 5307 FY 2008/2009 Operating Assistance - 5311 FY 2008/2009 I-15/SR74 IC Jct Improvements Sr60/Nason St. IC Improvements SR60/Nason St. IC Reconstruction SR60/Nason St. IC + Moreno Beach Dr. IC Improvements SR60/Theodore St. IC Improvements U.S. 95/Intake Blvd. Widening (Hobson Way to 14th St.) 1-215 & SR 60 Reconstruction of Jct to provide 2 HOV direct connector lanes Minor Projects Lump Sum listing SHOPP - Collission Reduction Projets Lump Sum Listing Agency Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Murrieta Ca!trans Sunline Transit • 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.10 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID 45580 45600 RIV990701 RIV0084 RIV010203 RIVLS02 RIV080921 Title Approval Date: 03/18/2009 I-10/Gene Autry Tr./Palm Dr. IC I-10/Bob Hope Dr. Extension SR60Nalley Way IC SR91 @ Van Buren Blvd. IC I-215/Clinton Keith IC SHOPP - Roadway Preservation Projects Lump Sum Purchase of ITS Equipment Agency Corona Corona RCTC RCTC RCTC RTA RTA RTA RTA RTA Riverside Riverside Sunline Transit Sunline Transit 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.12 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID RIV090119 RIV090120 RIV090301 RIV090302 RIV090303 RIV090123 RIV090124 RIV090125 RIV090126 RIV090127 RIV090121 RIV090122 RIV071229 RIV071232 Title Approval Date: Pending Purchase 4 replacement Type II CNG DAR buses Purchase bus stop shelters & bus stop amenities Metrolink Positive Train Control SCRRA Rehab & Renovation of Metrolink Rail SCRRA Central Maintenance Facility & Keller St. Yard Maintenance Facility Capitalized Preventative Maintenance - ARRA 5307 & ARRA 5311 ADA Operating Assistance - ARRA 5307 & ARRA 5311 Capital cost of contracting -ARRA 5307 Debt Financing for 55 CNG Replacement 40-ft buses purchased in 2001- ARRA 5307 Bus Stop Amenities - ARRA 5307 & ARRA 5311 Purchase farebox system - ARRA 5307 Purchase equipment to support the CNG Maintenance Facility - ARRA 5307 Purchase transit enhancements & bus stop amenities - ARRA 5307 Facility Improvements - ARRA 5307 Agency Corona • • 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.13 Riverside County Transportation Commission Project ID Title RIV011241 Auto Center Dr. Grade Separation Approval Date: 04/08/2009 2008 RTIP - AMENDMENT NO.14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agency RCTC Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Co. Riverside Murrieta Project ID RIV041047 45580 45600 RIV990701 RIV0084 RIV010203 Title Approval Date: Pending STIP-TE Project Lump Sum 1-10/Gene Autry Tr./Palm Dr. IC I-10/Bob Hope Dr. Extension SR60Nalley Way IC SR91 @ Van Buren Blvd. IC 1-215/Clinton Keith IC AGENDA ITEM 10 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 20, 2009 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission Environmental Process STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California Transportation Commission (CTC) will not allocate funds under their authority (e.g., STIP, TE, TCRP, Prop 1 B, etc.) to a project for design, right-of-way, or construction until the final environmental document is complete. After the CTC verifies that the project has received environmental clearance, the project is determined eligible for future consideration of funding. When the CEQA Lead Agency is a local agency (anyone other than Caltrans), the local agency is responsible for providing the necessary documentation to the CTC for this determination. The attached guidelines define the process for providing this information to the CTC. This information can be submitted concurrently with an allocation request; however, agencies are encouraged to complete this process as early as possible to avoid delay of future allocations. Process for Submitting Environmental Information to the California Transportation Commission Introduction For all projects that are anticipated to be funded through a. program under the purview of the California Transportation Commission (Commission), full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required. In addition, if federal requirements are applicable, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is also required. The Commission will not allocate funds to projects for design, right of way or construction until the final environmental document is complete and the Commission has approved the environmentally cleared project for consideration of future funding. The guidance below is intended to outline the process that is required to receive approval for future consideration of funding. This information is intended for those CEQA Lead Agencies other than the Department: of Transportation (Department). When the Department acts as the Lead Agency, the Department will ensure that the necessary environmental documents, including the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) are brought forward to the Commission for action. Background Public Resources Code Section 21102 states that "No state agency, board, or commission shall request funds, nor shall any state agency, board, or commission which authorizes expenditures of funds, other than funds appropriated in the Budget Act, authorize funds for expenditure for any project, other than a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted or funded, which may have a significant effect on the environment unless such request or authorization is accompanied by an environmental impact report. Feasibility and planning studies exempted by this section from the preparation of an environmental impact report shall nevertheless include consideration of environmental factors." Public Resources Code Section 21150 states that "State agencies, boards, and commissions, responsible for allocating state or federal funds on a project -by -project basis to local agencies for any project which may have a significant effect on the environment, shall require from the responsible local governmental agency a detailed statement setting forth the matters specified in Section 21100 prior to the allocation of any funds other than funds solely for projects involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded." California Transportation Commission Page 1 Updated March 23, 2009 Notice of Preparation and Draft Environmental Impact Reports Notices of Preparation and DEIRs should be forwarded to the Commission to allow the Commission to provide comments as a Responsible Agency. The NOP and/or DEIR should be accompanied by a letter that describes the following: • Name of the CEQA Lead Agency • Project Title • County/Route/Postmile and Project Expenditure Authorization(s), if applicable • Project funding information: o Whether the project is fully funded, not fully funded, or funded through a certain project phase (e.g., through PS&E) o Funding source(s), amount(s) and programming year(s) o Total estimated project cost o Estimated year to begin construction (e.g., FY 2009-2010) o Any unusual aspects of funding (e.g., grandfathered funds, project to be funded and built in phases, etc.) • Brief statement explaining reason for an Environmental Impact Report, rather than a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration • The future action(s) the Lead Agency intends to request from the Commission for the project: o Vote of funds o Vote to approve a Route Adoption o Vote to approve a New Public Road Connection • One copy of the NOP or DEIR Negative Declarations/Mitigated Negative Declarations/Final Environmental Impact Reports Upon completion of the environmental process by the Lead Agency, the ND, MND or FEIR should be forwarded to the Commission to request that a project be considered for future funding. The following is required for processing such a request: • Name of CEQA Lead Agency • Project Title • County/Route/Postmile and Project Expenditure Authorization(s), if applicable • Project funding information: o Whether the project is fully funded, not fully funded, or funded through a certain project phase (e.g., through PS&E) o Funding source(s), amount(s) and programming year(s) o Total estimated project cost o Estimated year to begin construction (e.g., FY 2009-2010) o Any unusual aspects of funding (e.g., grandfathered funds, project to be funded and built in phases, etc.) • The future action(s) the Lead Agency intends to request from the CTC for the project: o Vote of funds o Vote to approve a Route Adoption o Vote to approve New Public Road Connection • One copy of the FEIR, ND or MD (include an electronic copy, if available) • One copy of the approved (signed) project approval document (e.g., Project Report) • One copy of the Executive Summary • One copy of the Lead Agency's Notice of Determination (NOD) California Transportation Commission Page 2 Updated March 23, 2009 • One copy of the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, if applicable • One copy of the Board, Commission, Local Agency Resolution approving the EIR with Overriding Considerations, if applicable • One copy of the project vicinity map, reproducible in 8.5" x 11" black and white format • Brief summary of significant impacts and applicable mitigation measures • Confirmation whether the preferred alternative set forth in the final environmental document is consistent with the project scope of work programmed by the Commission (project included in the STIP, SHOPP, TCRP, etc.). Where a project scope has been modified from the prior programming action, a description of the modification should be provided. • For environmental documents covering multiple projects, a brief explanation of the various components and projects covered and the corresponding programming detail. Exemption from CEQA Where the Lead Agency has made a determination that a project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, notification of such exemption should be provided to the Department prior to, or upon a request for, allocation of funds. The Department will then notify the Commission of such exemption through the allocation request on the Commission's agenda and/or vote box. Copies of CEQA exemption filings for Proposition 1 B projects should be forwarded to the Commission. Proposition 1 B Projects In addition to the requirements set forth above, the Lead Agency and/or Project Sponsors for Proposition 1 B projects should include in their transmittal of a final environmental document the following information and confirmations` • Whether the preferred alternative includes a scope of work that is or is not consistent with the prior programming actions for the project programmed by the Commission in the Proposition 113 program. If there is a revised scope, the revised scope may require an amendment to the project baseline agreement. • Whether the preferred alternative results in an estimated cost above the current programmed amount. If this is the case, the project sponsor is responsible for securing necessary supplemental funds to ensure that the project is fully funded and delivered in a timely manner. The project sponsor's commitment, funding plan, and corresponding resolution should be included with the letter. • In its adopting resolution for the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF), the Commission established its intention to monitor the outcomes of the environmental process with regard to air quality impacts due to emissions from diesel or other particulates and related mitigation strategies. The Commission will only allocate TCIF to projects that can demonstrate compliance with applicable environmental requirements, including the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, the project sponsor should commit in the letter, to the implementation of these mitigation measures, if applicable, as part of its submittal of the final environmental document for approval for future funding consideration. California Transportation Commission Page 3 Updated March 23, 2009 Timeline for Requesting Commission Action The following timeline should be followed in determining when to expect that a NOP, DEIR and/or final environmental document will be considered by the Commission: CTC Submission Meeting Due to CTC" January 14, 2009 November 17, 2008 February 18/19, 2009 December 22, 2008 March 11/12, 2009 January 12, 2009 April 15/16, 2009 February 9, 2009 May 14, 2009 March 16, 2009 June 10/11, 2009 April 13, 2009 July 8/9, 2009 May 11, 2009 August 12/13, 2009 June 15, 2009 September 9/10, 2009 July 13, 2009 October 14/15, 2009 August 17, 2009 November 12, 2009 September 14, 2009 December 9/10, 2009 October 9, 2009 ` Date is consistent with the Department's Local Agency Off System CTC Agenda item Request Timeline. Contact.lnformation Questions pertaining to this process should be directed to Susan Bransen at (916) 654-4245 or Sbransen@dot.ca.gov. Environmental Documentation should be sent to: California Transportation Commission Attention: Susan Bransen 1120 N Street, MS 52 Sacramento, CA 95814 California Transportation Commission Page 4 Updated March 23, 2009 AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. AGENDA ITEP112 • URGENCY ITEM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Priority Projects for the New Authorization Bill FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt High Priority Projects for Federal Authorization: a) Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations in Riverside County; b) Interstate 215 Corridor Improvements; and c) Interstate 10 Corridor Improvements; 2) Direct staff to work cooperatively with Coachella Valley Association of Governments and San Bernardino Associated Governments on High Priority Project requests; and 3) Direct staff to work cooperatively to support Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency on those agencies' project requests. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee is in the midst of writing language for the next federal transportation authorization bill. The Committee's chairman, Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), has stated that he intends to introduce the bill by May 15. He has further stated that he intends to markup the bill in the T&I Committee in late May and consider the bill on the House floor in June. This timeline began to emerge in early March, shortly following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or "stimulus" bill. Until then, many in Washington, DC, questioned whether ARRA's infrastructure investment would lessen political pressure to pass a new transportation authorization bill in 2009. Instead, it seems to have emboldened Chairs Oberstar and Boxer to move forward with legislation quickly (due to their perceived inadequate infrastructure investment in ARRA). Additionally, mixed - messages regarding the role of earmarks (now dubbed "congressionally directed priorities") in the authorization bill have been sent by Congress and the Administration. However, it is now apparent that Congress intends to include Member priority projects in the bill from the outset. 1 Given that the details of the House bill are now being constructed, the T&I Committee has officially asked Members of Congress to submit High Priority Project requests from their respective districts to the T&I Committee. Members have been given until May 8 to submit High Priority Projects. The Commission should soon be receiving calls for projects from the four Members who represent Riverside County. In anticipation of this call, staff has prepared a recommendation to the Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee for the Commission to sponsor a strategic suite of projects for the authorization bill. Vetting Commission Priority Projects At its August 2008 meeting, this ad hoc committee received recommendations from Commission federal lobbyists and staff regarding criteria for authorization projects. Having received no alternative suggestions from the ad hoc committee at that time, staff continues to recommend that projects sought by the Commission in the next reauthorization shall: • Have a clear federal nexus; • Be regional in nature; and • Be deliverable within the timeframe of the bill (before 2015-16) Furthermore, the ad hoc committee discussed its desire to support corridors for improvement rather than individual projects. A regional corridor approach is consistent with recent policies by Senate and House Appropriations Committees and Senator Feinstein. As the Commission discussed at its 2008 workshop in La Quinta with its three federal lobbyists, staff believes the Commission will benefit from maintaining a strategy that focuses on the highest regional priorities, despite the many requests that will be made by cities for smaller projects. Competition will be fierce for limited dollars; diluting the Commission's support for the multitudinous local projects nominated by cities will detract from a regional message that can set Riverside County apart from others in California and the nation. Congressional Criteria In a letter dated April 2, 2009, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and key committee members outlined their standards for High Priority Project requests. The letter is an attachment to this item. The basic points are outlined below: • For road projects, is the project on the national highway or interstate system? • Can 80% of the total cost of the phase or segment of the project be identified through local, state, or federal sources? (Sources and amounts must be named). • How likely is construction of the project to begin during the term of the Act? Urgency Item • • • 2 • • • Is the project explicitly supported by the state or local government agency? • Is the project of national or regional significance? • What are the safety, economic development, mobility, and environmental benefits associated with the completion of the project? • What opportunity will the public have to comment on the project? • Is the project in the region's long range state and/or federal transportation improvement plan? • Members must certify that neither the Member nor his/her spouse has any financial interest in the project. • Members are required to post requests for projects on the Member's website. Projects included in the bill will be posted on the Committee website, with all certifications and justifications provided to the Committee. Given these detailed principles set by the T&I Committee, staff recommends the Commission adopt three major corridors of national and regional significance as High Priority Projects: Alameda Corridor East and Interstates 215 and 10. Within each of these corridors are projects that are currently under development that increase their likelihood of being "shovel ready" within the term of the new authorization bill. Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations in Riverside County Congressional Districts: 41-Lewis, 44-Calvert, 45-Bono Mack The Commission has twice adopted a Grade Separation Funding Strategy, a one -of - a -kind document in Southern California that provides a blueprint for delivering the 20 highest -priority grade separations in Riverside County. There are 13 grade separations in this funding strategy that could be deliverable by 2016. The blueprint easily achieves the standards set by the T&I Committee for project justification. The blueprint demonstrates significant local funding commitments to all 13 projects. Grade separations have been a consistent congressional priority dating back to SAFETEA-LU, where Alameda Corridor East was identified as a Project of National and Regional Significance. Sponsoring this corridor as a High Priority Project also follows precedent set by the allocation of the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) from Proposition 1 B, which was supported by the entire Southern California region. The Commission has been consistently supportive of grade separations on Alameda Corridor East as a countywide priority. Further, the Commission will continue to seek the creation of a national goods movement funding program that will address the local impacts of international trade. Urgency Item 3 Projects in the Commission's Grade Separation Funding Strategy that are deliverable within the timeframe of the new authorization bill are: Project Lead Agency Total Cost (million) TCIF SAFETEA-LU Auto Center Drive/BNSF Corona $ 32.0 Yes Yes Avenue 52/UP Coachella $ 17.3 Avenue56/Airport Boulevard/UP County $ 60.0 Yes Avenue 66/UP County $ 33.5 Yes Iowa Avenue/BNSF & UP Riverside $ 32.0 Yes Yes Magnolia Avenue/UP Riverside $ 51.2 Yes Sunset Avenue/UP Banning $ 36.5 Yes Yes 3'd Street/BNSF & UP Riverside $ 40.2 Yes Clay Street/UP County $ 37.4 Yes Yes Magnolia Avenue/BNSF County $ 81.8 Yes Riverside Avenue/UP Riverside $ 30.3 Yes Streeter Avenue/UP Riverside $ 36.8 Yes Jurupa Road/UP County $ 108.4 TOTAL $ 597.4 The Commission would seek a federal share of approximately $365 million for these Alameda Corridor East projects. If approved by the ad hoc committee, staff would further refine the details of this request to make a competitive application to our Member offices and the T&1 Committee. Interstate 215 Corridor Improvements Congressional Districts: 41-Lewis, 44-Calvert, 45-Bono Mack, 49-lssa Interstate 215 is a key corridor in the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan and is prioritized by the Commission in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has also recognized 1-215 as a priority with a $38 million investment from the Proposition 1 B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). The Commission is investing in transit along the corridor as well with the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, a project that has received significant federal investment. This highway is regionally significant in its role as a link between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. last week, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution declaring 1-215 a bi-county regional priority. The San Bernardino Board of Supervisors will soon adopt the same resolution. The 1-215 corridor presents an opportunity to demonstrate regional unity and address significant congestion and air quality challenges. Staff proposes that I-215 corridor improvements, consisting of three critical projects, be considered for a High Priority Project request to Congress. Urgency Item 4 • • • French Valley Parkway This new facility will play a critical role in improving infrastructure in southwest Riverside County and traffic flow near the Riverside/San Diego County border. This $122 million project received High Priority Project designation in SAFETEA-LU from Rep. Darrell lssa. State funds totaling $31.5 million have been placed on the project, designating French Valley Parkway as a regional priority. The authorization request would be approximately $55.2 million. Anticipated construction start is in FY 2010/11. Central 1-215 Project: Scott Road to Nuevo Road This project will add one mixed flow lane addition in both the north and south bound directions of 1-21.5 between Scott and Nuevo Road, approximately 12.9 miles. The project will include the widening of four existing bridges and the replacement of two bridges. The project will involve extensive drainage modifications/improvements. This project will address some existing drainage problems and account for all new run off. Most work will be within the existing state right of way. The project is in the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance stage, with a projected construction start date in 2013. A total of $170 million is needed for construction. This segment of 1-215 will be a continuation of the widening to be done on from Scott Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. That segment is being funded by state Proposition 113 funds. 1-215 Bi-County HOV Gap Closure Project The Commission added this project to the 10-Year Measure A Delivery Plan in February 2009. This action will expedite a deliverable portion of the larger bi-county 1-215 project that will cost upwards of $1.4 billion. The interim project includes the addition of one HOV lane between the newly completed 60/91 /215 interchange and Orange Show Road in San Bernardino. The total project cost is expected to be $167.46 million. The Commission will be responsible for $35.72 million with SANBAG responsible for the balance. Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration have given conceptual approval to deliver this project separately from the larger 1-215 bi-county project with the understanding that it will be given funding priority and delivered by 2014. Advocating for this project will require cooperation and coordination .with SANBAG in Washington, DC. If staff's recommendation is approved, staff will proactively outreach to SANBAG to advance this project's standing in Washington, DC. Urgency Item 5 As with Alameda Corridor East, staff recommends that 1-215 be presented as a dynamic package of investments that are regional in nature with direct federal interest, emphasizing air quality improvement, mobility choices, and goods movement benefits. Perris Valley Line Remains a Priority for Annual Appropriations Cycle Staff is not recommending that Perris Valley Line be included in the 1-215 Corridor proposal for authorization. This project has been receiving federal funds from the annual appropriations bills passed by Congress. Perris Valley Line is eligible to receive a Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) from the Federal Transit Administration, which would create an obligation for the federal government to fund the project up to $75 million. Annual appropriations from the Small Starts program sponsored by Senator Feinstein have set aside approximately $47 million for the project in the last two fiscal years. The Commission will continue to request appropriations for Perris Valley Line until the project has received its maximum federal share of $75 million. 1-10 Corridor Improvements 41-Lewis, 45-Bono Mack The Coachella Valley Association of Governments and their local agency partners in the desert have spent many years developing a series of five important interchange reconstructions on 1-10. These interchanges have serious economic development, air quality, and congestion relief implications for the Coachella Valley. The free flow of people and commerce off of 1-10 is critical to the future of the valley. A major obstacle to delivering these five interchanges has been securing funding in an environment where construction costs escalated globally and budget problems plagued the state and federal governments. The ARRA presentedan opportunity for a breakthrough. At its March meeting, the Commission designated the Palm Drive/1-10 and Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road/I-10 interchanges as priorities for investment using the Commission's anticipated ARRA funds. Once these two "stimulus" projects go to construction, there will be three remaining 1-10 interchanges to build: Indian Avenue/I-10, Jefferson Street/I-10, and Date Palm Drive/1-10. Assuming timely enactment of the new authorization bill, all three projects could stand to benefit from new federal funding. While local and state commitments have been made to fully fund the projects once they are ready to go to construction, downturns in state and local revenue present potential future obstacles. Staff recommends that the Commission maintain a corridor approach on 1-10 and request at least $110 million for all five interchanges to guarantee delivery of these projects once pre -construction work is completed. Urgency Item • 6 • • • Staff has been in communication with CVAG regarding these interchanges and their potential for federal authorization funding. If this priority designation is approved by the ad hoc committee, staff will continue to work with CVAG in preparing a strong and detailed application to our Member offices. Transit Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency will also be asked to prepare requests for High Priority Projects. Staff recommends that the Commission work cooperatively with these operators to develop strong requests for their priority projects. Based on the structure of previous authorization bills, transit projects should not compete with the Commission's highway and grade separation priorities. It is not yet known what priorities the two operators will endorse, however the Commission can work cooperatively to ensure that the transportation community in Riverside County presents a strong package to Congress. Next Steps At the direction of the ad hoc committee, staff will begin preparing documentation to support each High Priority Project request. Staff requests approval of this three - corridor concept and the projects within those corridors, as well as direction to work with regional partner agencies in the development of a coordinated advocacy strategy. Due to the deadlines provided by the T&I Committee, time will be of the essence. The May 8 deadline for Members to submit project requests to T&I Likely means that Members will ask the Commission to submit its projects for review one or two weeks ahead of the May 8 deadline. Given that these instructions were given last week, it does not provide for a normal course for full Commission consideration before the May 8 deadline. The ad hoc committee's recommendation will be taken to the full Commission. Commission staff and lobbyists are prepared to move quickly at the direction of the ad hoc committee. As the introductory paragraph to this staff report indicates, the timing of authorization activities has been a constant question since federal economic stimulus legislation began to be contemplated late last year. Despite Chairman Oberstar's assertions that the House will move quickly to pass a new bill, it is not yet known what Speaker Pelosi's disposition is and few details about the Senate's calendar (other than Senator Boxer's pledge to do a bill on -time) are known. Urgency Item 7 Ultimately, the goal of approving a Commission -sponsored suite of projects and including them in the House bill is to establish a precedent in the public record that Riverside County infrastructure is a national and regional priority. While the timing of the legislation may change several times, staff recommends that Commission projects be part of the initial draft. Attachments: 1) Letter from Chairman Oberstar 2) T&I Committee Project Questionnaire Urgency Item • 8 • Jainess 3C. 4beratar Coalman David Ileysnsfeld, Chief of SUIT Ward IV. MeCarraglier, Chief Counsel • • Dear It*. Boost of Tatortontatiuto Committee on Zratiopottation anb Infraistructute aiiiimoiligtoo, IBC 20515 April 2, 2009 3Jobit Alita Ranting teptili titan filnaber James W. Coon II, Republican Chief of Stall The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is crafting new surface transportation authorization legislation to replace the Safe, Accourble, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy fox Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59)„ which expires on September 30, 2009. This legislation will transform our surface transportation,programs by strengthening the current Federal -state -local partnership, ensuring that programs meet specific performance -based rnetrics, and providing for greater transparency and accountability for Federal, state, and local decision -making. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Transportation, States, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and public transit agencies are, responsible for doe vast majority of surface transportation investment decisions. Although the current Federal -state -local partnership has served highway and transit systems well, not all communities are -treated equally in the decision -making process. To complement the work done by these -agencies, and to ensure that the needs of the communities that we represent are full partners in these important programs, a small percentage of the overall investment of the authorization bill will be available far Member -designated, High Priority Projects ("HPPs"). As elected Members of Congress, we are uniquely responsible and accountable to our constituents; as such, we must be responsive to them by investing in worthwhile projects critical to our districts that may otherwise not be funded. The Committee will accept requests from Members of Congress to designate funding for High Priority Projects to ensure that the diverse transportation needs of our districts-- urban, suburban, and rural — are addressed with the investment provided in this legislation. The new authorization legislation will include a strong focus on performance and accountability, and these same high standards will be applied throughout the High Priority Project submission and selection process. To address concerns that have been raised xvith the Member - designated High Priority Project program authorized in SAFETEA—LU and prior surface transportation legislation, and to ensure that projects that receive funding in this surface April 2, 2009 Page 2 transportation authorization act result in tangible transportation and safety benefits, the Corrtrnittee on Transportation and Infrastructure has adopted the following principles. for Member -designated High Priority:Projects: • The Committee requires all projects to meet eligibility criteria under Tide 23 (Highways) or Chapter 53 of Tide 49 (Public Transit) of the United States Code to ensure that HPPs comply with highway and transit program objectives, In addition, the Committee specifically prohibits EIPP funding for non. -surface transportation projects, such as funding of transportation museums, horse trails, historic battlefields, and other non -transportation projects. • The Committee requites Members- to provide specific information on the type, location, total cost, percentage of total cost that the request would finance, and benefits of the project, in order for the Committee to effectively analyze the merits of the project request. • The Committee requires Members to specifically identify funding to finance at least 80 percent of the total cost of the phase or segment of the project requested by either (1) the amount requested by the Member; or (2) the amount requested by the Member and other specifically designated Pederal„ state, local, or private funding sources. The intent of this provision is to increase the likelihood that construction of the project will be underway during the term of the act. • To ensure that HPPs hive significant state or local support, the. Committee requires Members to provide at least one letter of support for the project froutthe state Department of Transportation or affected local government or governmental agency. The Committee requires such government or agency to specify the process that will be ' followed to provide an opportunity for public comment (such as the Environmental Impact:Statement or other permitting process that requires public review) on the project. The Committee also requires such government Of agency to identify other Federal, state, local, or private funding sources that may be used to advance the project, To ensure greater transparency and accountability for HPPs, the Conunittee establishes the following transparency and accountability principles: • Members are required to certify that neither the Member nor his or her spouse has any financial interest in a project requested; • Members are required to post requests for projects on the Member's website; • • • • April 2, 2009 Page 3 • The Committee will afford the U.S. Department of Transportation at least 20 days to review all project requests to ensure that the projects meet program eligibility criteria; • A list of all Member -designated -High Priority Projects that are included in the bill will be posted on the Committee website; and • A copy of all Member financial interest certifications for HPPs that are included in the bill will be posted on the Committee website. The Committee intends to repeal. prior ISTEA and TEA. 21project designations that have not proceeded to construction or have remaining unused funds to ensure the effective use of highway and transit funds. The Committee will accept HPP requests that adhere to these specific principles beginning on. April 27, 2009, and ending on May 8, 2009. Members will have the opportunity to submit project requests through the Committee's online database, which will be located at littp://lipp.transportation.house.gov. Members will be required to submit both electronic and hard copies of all High Priority Project requests. Online answers to the enclosed questionnaire will be required for each project submission. We strongly recommend that Members immediately begin to compile the information and letters of support necessaty to complete their project requests. To assist Members in this process, the Committee will hold a series of staff briefings and question -and -answer sessions for Congressional staff, as follows: Date Time Location April 8, 2009 2:00 p.m. 2167 Rayburn I-1015 Aptil 15, 2009 2:00 p.m. 2167 Rayburn HOB April 24, 2009 10:00 a.m. 2167 Rayburn HOB May 1, 2009 200 p.m. 2167 Rayburn HOB In addition, on April 28, 2009, in room 2167 of the Rayburn Flouse Office Building, the Subcomtni.ttee on Highways and Transit will hold a heating to receive testimony from Members of Congress regarding project requests. Although participating in the hearing will not impact the inclusion of a requested project in this legislation, the hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to publicly discuss the needs of their district and the merits of their project requests. If you are interested in participating in this bearing, please contact the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit staff at (202) 225-9989. April 2, 2009 Page 4 If you have arty questions about the _High Priority, Project submission process, please have your staff contact Jackie Schmitz. of the Majority staff of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit at Jackie.Schinitz@mail house gov or (242) 225-9989, or Dan Veoni of the Republican staff of the Subcorrunittee on Highways and Transit at Dan.Veoni@mailhouse.gov or (202) 225-6715. We believe that Member -designated projects can play an appropriate role in the upcoming surface transportation authorization act, and that the High Priority Project reform principles will ensure that projects that receive funding will result in tangible transportation and safety benefits. We appreciate your willingness to work with us to ensure that this process meets the highest standards of transparency and accountability. Sincerely, eter eFazio, M.C. lin J. can, M.C. Diking king ember Subcommittee on Highways & Transit Subcommittee on Highways & Transit Enclosure • • • I ' '~AGENCY TAC MEMBER BANNING DUANE BURK Director of Public Works BEAUMONT KISHEN PRATHIVADI Assistant Director of Public Works BLYTHE IJIM RODKEY Public Works Director CVAG !ALLYN WAGGLE CALIMESA I CARLOS ZAMANO [City Engineer CAL TRANS I PATRICK HALLY CANYON LAKE I HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer ALTERNATE Kahono Oei Dee Moorjani Chad Aaby City Engineer Mike Shoberg I Bob French Public Works Director !Bill Mosby Eric Skaugset Assistant Engineer TECHNICAL •~y COMMITTEE A';Y,;009 PRINT NAME SIGNATURE {ztfrrlcJ.NO 0 l?l ~ klSHCN PIL~1'~AVP.DI p -It. . ,/:,e,s. .t.s..._. ;(~Jvt.-vt.f~ ~~it~ . ft\~~~ Co.r1os ~l'Vla110 ~l~•S' t<;,,f3rf{~Pln.j ff~o /a CATHEDRAL !BILL BAYNE CITY Pavel Hom COACHELLA ]PAULTOOR Tony Lucero (31 l L f3A '~t-l'f'L HARi< CHAPPEL'-~~TOOR-------tr<~-+-----+ BUD \-?~ ~4/d Public Works Director CORONA KIP FIELD Bob Morin !Acting Public Works Director I Principal Civil Engineer DESERT HOT I JONATHAN HOY SPRINGS Public Works Director /City Engineer &\o JJid2-;~ • 4/16/2009 -----i TECHNICAL AD,RY COMMITTEE--------April , 2009 • --PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ~·AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE HEMET MIKE GOW Victor Monz M~~ow Principal Engineer ~ INDIAN WELLS TIM WASSIL Bondie Baker Public Works Director/City Assistant Engineer II Engineer INDIO JIM SMITH Tom Rafferty JL£~;{( Jl,L-__ Director of Public Works Principal:~ LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASS'ON Nick Nickerson N,c.k. N\ c.1~e." SO(\ '\\~\\~ Public Works Director/City Engineer LAKE KEN SEUMALO Ed Basubas p;)~ ELSINORE City Engineer City Traffic Engineer 6D ::O~Su(bAS ~ \ MORENO CHRIS VOGT Prem Kumar ~ VALLEY Public Works Director/City Deputy Public Works ?t(~IV\ K \A VV\Jq_-"' Engineer Director/Assistant City -Engineer MURRIETA PATRICK THOMAS Russ Napier 'fatn~ l T~M~1' P~ff~ Director of Public Works/City Capital Improvement Engineer Program Manager NORCO BILL THOMPSON Lori Askew Director of Public Works Associate Engineer PALM DESERT MARK GREENWOOD Alana Townsend u~¥'-~R~\) ~~ Director of Public works --I PALM SPRINGS DAVE BARAKIAN Marcus Fuller pq,v~ 0t:r~K'!IY1 [jj}J1 Director of Public Works/City Engineer -PVVTA 4/16/2009 TECHNICAL AD,RY COMMITTEE April , 2009 • ":AGENCY I TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE I PRINT NAME SIGNATURE PERRIS I HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer #A-8 ,,f!> RTA IMARK STANLEY Scott Richardson Director of Planning Planning and Program Manager RANCHO BRUCE HARRY Randy Viegas MIRAGE Director of Public Works Project Manager &vet.,, ~~ RIVERSIDE ITOM BOYD Siobhan Foster Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer RIVERSIDE IJUAN PEREZ I Patty Romo <yt<4 ~()'\() ~2-COUNTY Director of Transportation Deputy Director of Transportation SAN JACINTO I HABIB MOTLAGH Eric Skaugset H-4-rl City Engineer Assistant Engineer SUN LINE EUNICE LOVI Alfonso Hernandez I 4/,,:-,:;?Mf(,,? fl & fVV4 IVj;) ~·z,. Director of Planning Assistant Planner IGREG BUTLER TEMECULA !Dan York IGeeb 1'~ Director of Public Works City Engineer a7Ua'L--WILDOMAR I MICHAEL KASHIWAGI Diane Nguyen Director of Public Works Transportation Programs Manager WR COG I RUTHANNE TAYLOR· I BERGER Deputy Executive Director 4/16/2009 AGENCY TECHNICAL AD'.RY COMMITTEE Apri~2009 NAME • TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL !? c~ ~ y//ce--H1o~R?..:b f?J-~ 7:;r-/oq1-Raz:_ rr~-r MV2'Ji'o 9 SI 7 !?-7 --79 ? ~ Cj s I-7 '"S7-1Cl7 r cl' t, I tvl61f~J)v,irbi{) I (2CTC &IT'( of Mor-~o ·~trU€'( vJ\L, LO~ \'j[_" \ ~f?.k!S. \AA~~ CALTRA.,r'15 AV1cf V-Ul 2ur e.,( .cL °IS( -1£ 7 -t'12.4 ~~ J...f)J.ll!J ('16i) 4(3 ·-3l4-9 A\~ ~ f!A/tb-451-155·-''b ~07 ~~ ~1\t~ 01~--i 3&~ 9Y 7 .CJ j v f?~'fS'-'I "'1 ~ I qa"(, Zt'/--~15:" 0\ O°I..-3 fb&, -0 Z08 (\ r'\V\€.. ~61~ MC.lr.\'\f_\dU~\A'.l i \\Ao.I\ .r.oflL CH /ZI .5 I G/31 rl/£.//10/fl/ 1(rtt%1) 383--0 :s ~8 osc;J0Utoq-J,.g _ Le,b;,.,-e.J1"fl (i] dot.1 CE:i' ·~ov ._, v '7 41612009 • NAME \k\~ ~en'° • ATTENDANCE ROSTER TAC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY,APRIL14,2009 REPRESENTING <:;(." . L·"> C_\ a~ ~(\"'" ~~Ct~ q N7 S;rr:ps D:~s a\ ~~'<\',.o..,_ c 17 d· ~ ,,f, JI,,,~,.$'/ ,t l2.CTC eDL:· TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL °5 5 \ <J-55·(.e IL( 0 (_°6{) t~·~ -~5otf Jft;tJ J) > e ;2S3 CJS\ 16J 11'-I( cz=Q 7o?r-77' ~? / 1, ~ L B:z.o -s-)l s- ?'s-J &".:it, -;JYcJ 6 q 57 --, S7 -1 t 41 ii 1S] "ig 7-713 t ·L?J7 --7 7cf--109j-